A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S.
government can order the killing of American citizens if they are
believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an
associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they
are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

This would seem to violate the constitutional prohibition against the violation of the due process rights of the targeted individuals. Seeing as these citizens are not members of military, and are not necessarily involved in operations against the US, it would seem to preclude the military exemptions authorized in a time of war.

This policy and the actions taken in its name seem to be nothing short of state sanctioned murder. Is there any authority granted to the Executive branch of the government to take these actions?

1 Answer
1

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a
grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in
the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;
nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put
in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal
case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private
property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Therefore, it is Constitutional only if the person in question is involved with or directly against the military, and only if we are in a time of war.

Also, the Constitution doesn't say

Whatever the SCOTUS says is law

It just says that we trust its judgement on the Constitution when a particular issue is in dispute.

However, I believe the 'justification' would be war on terror
– Phil LelloMar 28 '16 at 19:57

2

Answer could use clarification on what a "time of war" is, and if the US is in one.
– bobsburnerJan 9 at 11:02

Actually, the only sense in which the Constitution says we trust the SCOTUS on such matters is because the SCOTUS said it did. It was originally not entirely clear who decided things like what is constitutional, and it wasn't until the Marbury v. Madison case that the SCOTUS asserted that it held that power. Then-President Jefferson believed it was the President's power to do so, under his authority to enforce and uphold the constitution and its laws. But SCOTUS claimed it for itself, and largely prevented any further contestation of that because the decision did almost nothing else.
– zibadawa timmyApr 15 at 6:34